Re: => Physics and facts contradict Bush regime <=

In article said:

Hank said:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.

To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
expect come from and how does it operate on dust?

That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
tends to collapse symmetrically.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email hidden] | chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hank said:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.

To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
expect come from and how does it operate on dust?

That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

/BAH

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hank wrote:

> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.

To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
expect come from and how does it operate on dust?

That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Polarhound said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

Quoted message said:

>
>Hank wrote:
>
>
>> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.
>
>To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
>expect come from and how does it operate on dust?
>

That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

Well, he's only being a good Democrat doobie. You should hear
our local talk shows; they are in an absolute feeding frenzy
and not noticing that they're eating their own young.

Since he quoted a study of the physics, I was thinking
about, given the assumption that falling too slowly was
true, I began to think why it was. AAMOF, the falling
too slowly disproves the detonation conspiracy because
that would have caused all floors to start falling
at the same time. Thus it had to fall "slower".

/BAH

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hank wrote:

> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
> down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
> demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.

To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
expect come from and how does it operate on dust?

That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly.

Actually, they were falling very fast. Consider that if you would
juat have dropped a ball from the top of the WTC, it would take about
9 seconds for it to reach the ground, in free fall. Try counting,
"twenty one, twenty two, ... twenty nine". Our intuition is trained
by images (in movies and otherwise) of 3-4 story buildings collapsing.
Skyscrapers are a tad larger. Interestingly, one movie (LOrd of the
Rings) got it right, but they already had the "benefit" of knowing how
the real thing looks like.

Quoted message said:

The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

It is not "an upper floor hitting the lower floor". It is "the upper
20 floors hitting the next floor underneath", then "the upper 21
floors hitting the next floor underneath" etc. You've this type of
mass already going at speed and you expect a bounce?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email hidden] | chances are he is doing just the same"

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

Every time? How many "upper floors" do you
need to stacked on top of one another before that
"bounce" will be about like the one you see when,
say, the battleship Missouri is dropped onto a
sheet of tissue?

Bob M.

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Polarhound said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

<[email hidden]> writes:

>>
>>Hank wrote:
>>
>>
>>> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>>>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>>>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.
>>
>>To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
>>expect come from and how does it operate on dust?
>>
>
>That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
>"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
>theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
>the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
>support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
>but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
>And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
>structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
>decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
>tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

Well, he's only being a good Democrat doobie. You should hear
our local talk shows; they are in an absolute feeding frenzy
and not noticing that they're eating their own young.

Since he quoted a study of the physics, I was thinking
about, given the assumption that falling too slowly was
true, I began to think why it was. AAMOF, the falling
too slowly disproves the detonation conspiracy because
that would have caused all floors to start falling
at the same time.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Thus it had to fall "slower".

Actually, it WAS 'slower'. It was 'slower' for two
reasons :

a) The delay involved as the above floors had to
shatter the layer below and

b) All the AIR trapped between floors, which acted
as a momentary cushion.

So, the towers didn't so much FALL as 'deflate'.

Now I've also heard konspirists claiming that just
the TOP few floors fell "too fast". Well, it would
have LOOKED that way, because the lower floors
subsequently fell "too slow". The top floors actually
fell at the 'right' speed because they were pre-
shattered structurally and also couldn't hold as
much of an air cushion.

The physics of making ten or twenty floors fall
"too fast" must be fascinating too. I'll bet it
would take a dozen inverted Saturn-V boosters
on the roof to create any noticible difference
in how fast that portion fell. They were BIG,
HEAVY buildings ... lots of MASS that would need
to be accelerated. Explosives ... nope ... they
would just shatter the thing, not 'push it down'.

But facts and reason REALLY don't count, do they ?

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Polarhound said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain

<[email hidden]> writes:

>>
>>Hank wrote:
>>
>>
>>> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>>>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>>>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.
>>
>>To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
>>expect come from and how does it operate on dust?
>>
>
>That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
>"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
>theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
>the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
>support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
>but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
>And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
>structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
>decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
>tends to collapse symmetrically.

IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

Well, he's only being a good Democrat doobie. You should hear
our local talk shows; they are in an absolute feeding frenzy
and not noticing that they're eating their own young.

Since he quoted a study of the physics, I was thinking
about, given the assumption that falling too slowly was
true, I began to think why it was. AAMOF, the falling
too slowly disproves the detonation conspiracy because
that would have caused all floors to start falling
at the same time.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Thus it had to fall "slower".

Actually, it WAS 'slower'. It was 'slower' for two
reasons :

a) The delay involved as the above floors had to
shatter the layer below and

b) All the AIR trapped between floors, which acted
as a momentary cushion.

So, the towers didn't so much FALL as 'deflate'.

Now I've also heard konspirists claiming that just
the TOP few floors fell "too fast". Well, it would
have LOOKED that way, because the lower floors
subsequently fell "too slow". The top floors actually
fell at the 'right' speed because they were pre-
shattered structurally and also couldn't hold as
much of an air cushion.

The physics of making ten or twenty floors fall
"too fast" must be fascinating too. I'll bet it
would take a dozen inverted Saturn-V boosters
on the roof to create any noticible difference
in how fast that portion fell. They were BIG,
HEAVY buildings ... lots of MASS that would need
to be accelerated. Explosives ... nope ... they
would just shatter the thing, not 'push it down'.

But facts and reason REALLY don't count, do they ?

In article said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Polarhound said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain
>
> <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>>>
>>>Hank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>>>>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>>>>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.
>>>
>>>To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
>>>expect come from and how does it operate on dust?
>>>
>>
>>That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
>>"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
>>theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
>>the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
>>support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
>>but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
>>And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
>>structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
>>decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
>>tends to collapse symmetrically.
>
>
> IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
> too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
> down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
> want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
> hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

Well, he's only being a good Democrat doobie. You should hear
our local talk shows; they are in an absolute feeding frenzy
and not noticing that they're eating their own young.

Since he quoted a study of the physics, I was thinking
about, given the assumption that falling too slowly was
true, I began to think why it was. AAMOF, the falling
too slowly disproves the detonation conspiracy because
that would have caused all floors to start falling
at the same time.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Thus it had to fall "slower".

Actually, it WAS 'slower'. It was 'slower' for two
reasons :

a) The delay involved as the above floors had to
shatter the layer below and

b) All the AIR trapped between floors, which acted
as a momentary cushion.

So, the towers didn't so much FALL as 'deflate'.

Now I've also heard konspirists claiming that just
the TOP few floors fell "too fast". Well, it would
have LOOKED that way, because the lower floors
subsequently fell "too slow". The top floors actually
fell at the 'right' speed because they were pre-
shattered structurally and also couldn't hold as
much of an air cushion.

The physics of making ten or twenty floors fall
"too fast" must be fascinating too. I'll bet it
would take a dozen inverted Saturn-V boosters
on the roof to create any noticible difference
in how fast that portion fell. They were BIG,
HEAVY buildings ... lots of MASS that would need
to be accelerated. Explosives ... nope ... they
would just shatter the thing, not 'push it down'.

But facts and reason REALLY don't count, do they ?

Facts and reason? With conspiracy theorists? Let's be serious
here:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email hidden] | chances are he is doing just the same"

In article said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Polarhound said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Cain
>
> <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>>>
>>>Hank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
>>>>down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
>>>>demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.
>>>
>>>To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
>>>expect come from and how does it operate on dust?
>>>
>>
>>That's, indeed, part of the confusion (to the extent to which the term
>>"confusion" can be applied to the brain dead) of the conspiracy
>>theorists. The sole source of torque available is the stiffness of
>>the support columns in a situation of asymetrical load. But, the
>>support columns for a modern scyscrapers are not in the outside walls
>>but closer to the center, thus dramatically decreasing the tourque.
>>And, their reletive weight in comparison to the inertia of the
>>structure is much smaller then for low rise buildings, further
>>decreasing the torque. Thus, the taller the building, the more it
>>tends to collapse symmetrically.
>
>
> IIRC, there was also a comment here about the buildings falling
> too slowly. The falling looked similar to an accordian falling
> down. I had always thought that there would have been [for
> want of a better word] a bounce every time an upper floor
> hit the lower floor and so on.

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to begin
with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

Well, he's only being a good Democrat doobie. You should hear
our local talk shows; they are in an absolute feeding frenzy
and not noticing that they're eating their own young.

Since he quoted a study of the physics, I was thinking
about, given the assumption that falling too slowly was
true, I began to think why it was. AAMOF, the falling
too slowly disproves the detonation conspiracy because
that would have caused all floors to start falling
at the same time.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Thus it had to fall "slower".

Actually, it WAS 'slower'. It was 'slower' for two
reasons :

a) The delay involved as the above floors had to
shatter the layer below and

b) All the AIR trapped between floors, which acted
as a momentary cushion.

So, the towers didn't so much FALL as 'deflate'.

Now I've also heard konspirists claiming that just
the TOP few floors fell "too fast". Well, it would
have LOOKED that way, because the lower floors
subsequently fell "too slow". The top floors actually
fell at the 'right' speed because they were pre-
shattered structurally and also couldn't hold as
much of an air cushion.

The physics of making ten or twenty floors fall
"too fast" must be fascinating too. I'll bet it
would take a dozen inverted Saturn-V boosters
on the roof to create any noticible difference
in how fast that portion fell. They were BIG,
HEAVY buildings ... lots of MASS that would need
to be accelerated. Explosives ... nope ... they
would just shatter the thing, not 'push it down'.

But facts and reason REALLY don't count, do they ?

Facts and reason? With conspiracy theorists? Let's be serious
here:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email hidden] | chances are he is doing just the same"

Polarhound said:

The only thing falling slowly is the quality of Hank's rants to
begin with. He's down to rehashing 3 and 4 year old reports.

It's a new report and I didn't write it. Are you disputing
any of the physics, numbers, or facts in the paper? If so,
can you use words to explain what you're disputing and why
you're disputing it?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Bob Cain said:

Hank wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling
down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says.

Quoted message said:

To do otherwise would require a torque. Where does the torque you
expect come from and how does it operate on dust?

The WTC complex wasn't made of dust. It was made mostly of
steel. Uneven failure of support members would cause the torque.
How could random fires cause perfectly symmetric support failure
throughout the entire building? In fact, if you had read the article,
you'd see that this was addressed. Look at the top of the South Tower.

physics.byu.edu9 11%20Picture8%20(sotower).jpgOpen ↗

Also, consider the collapse of WTC7. It wasn't hit by a plane,
and only had a few small random fires. Yet the entire steel
frame, including all four exterior walls dropped at close
to free fall speed symmetrically and simultaneously. It was a
picture perfect example of the controlled demolition of a 47
story steel frame.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg

There's no logical explanation for how small random
fires could cause that. And then, there's the matter
of vaporized and molten steel in all three buildings.
I'd also like to see you melt steel with an oxygen
starved kerosene fire. And of course, the owner
of WTC7 admitted that he had it demolished.

-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Quoted message said:

Facts and reason? With conspiracy theorists? Let's be serious
here:-)

Gotta admit, the Bush regime's kerosene fire and
pancaking floors theory is pretty wild and easily
refuted with facts and physics...
It's even wilder when applied to WTC7...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook, on the rape, torture and murder
at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm)

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised." March 17, 2003.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Quoted message said:

Facts and reason? With conspiracy theorists? Let's be serious
here:-)

Gotta admit, the Bush regime's kerosene fire and
pancaking floors theory is pretty wild and easily
refuted with facts and physics...
It's even wilder when applied to WTC7...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook, on the rape, torture and murder
at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm)

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised." March 17, 2003.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Facts and reason? With conspiracy theorists? Let's be serious
here:-)

Gotta admit, the Bush regime's kerosene fire and
pancaking floors theory is pretty wild and easily
refuted with facts and physics...

Yes, yes, I know already that you're an idiot. No need to try to
convince me further. Bye, bye.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email hidden] | chances are he is doing just the same"

If all you can do is pull more [censored] out of the same discredited Marxist
source, you really ARE losing your touch.

We can do without you, /BAHHUMBUG

With 6E9 wonderful souls crawling the planet, we can do without anyone.

Have a nice day.

Some reporters live coverage of 911
(http://teslapress.com/nbc_web_version.html) hints to the use of
explosives:

(Enjoy. BTW, the question is not the way they fell but rather what made
them fall)

....
"Explosions"

"We just heard one more explosion," continues Banfield, "That's about
the fifth one we've heard. Police are telling us they're either car
bombs or they're simply cars that have overheated so much they are
exploding." Banfield reports how she and her producer narrowly escaped
a suffocating cloud that roared down the street following the collapse
....
Media banished

The American viewing public, riveted to NBC and panting with curiosity,

is not availed of another on-the-ground until 11:36 AM, when the
anchors turn the attention back downtown ever so briefly. Again it's
with Banfield. She is being pushed away by a Port Authority policeman
in a white uniform wearing a breathing mask.

"We're clearing the area for only emergency personnel, either law
enforcement or medical," he shouts at her through his mask.

He means "no press."

But Banfield bravely persists. She is trying to interview the cop. "Do
you know anything about those extra explosions we have heard?"

"No, I do not," says the cop, trying to break away from the reporter
while at the same time trying to push Banfield and her crew and all
other media out of the area.

"Were they car bombs?" she insists.

.. "I have no idea, ma'am."

"What about the sewers? Are they looking for bombs in the sewers?"

He ignores her. He walks away. She holds her turf. Then, suddenly, in
an awkward transition, the audio switches back to Tom and Katie but
with Banfield still on the screen talking earnestly into the camera.
Her audio has been cut off. Now it's back to the anchors.
...
Tom and Katie make no comment on Banfield's explosives report. They
take no issue with, and make no comment about, the banning of the press

from the WTC area.

Soon after 911, NBC News will send Ashleigh Banfield off to
Afghanistan.
....
secondary explosives

It is nearly thirty minutes before the curious viewer is granted
another on-the-ground WTC report. This comes from Pat Dawson and is
notable for obvious reasons.

At 11:56 AM Dawson is reporting on an interview he had conducted "just
moments ago" with Albert Perry, Chief of Fire Safety for the Fire
Department of New York City.

Dawson: "Perry told me that shortly after nine o'clock he had ten
alarms, roughly 200 men, in the building trying to effect a rescue of
the civilians who were in there. And, basically, he received word of
some kind of secondary device, that is, another bomb going off.

"He tried to get his men out quickly as he could, but he said there was

an explosion that took place. And an hour after the first hit, the
first crash [that] took place, there was another explosion in one of
the towers here.

"According to his theory, he thinks there were actually devices that
were planted in the building.

"One may have been in the plane. A second device, he speculates, was
probably planted in the building.

"So that's what we've been told by Albert Perry, who is chief of Safety

for the New York City Fire Department, just moments ago," reports
Dawson.

Dawson goes on, "Now we are continuing to hear explosions here
downtown."

Dawson reports that "the whole area is cordoned off and that rescue
workers are waiting to get in."

"But the bottom line," Dawson concludes, "is that he, Albert Perry,
said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary
explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not
thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."
....
collapse mystery

Tom is saying about the nuclear-winter devastation that it is "as
effective as if a bomb were dropped there. Airliners hitting buildings,

which came down, we presume," he qualifies, finally remembering the
Dawson report, "because of the initial explosion. There may have been
secondary explosions detonated in the building placed there by these
terrorists,"

So admits Tom Brokaw here at 1:41 PM on September 11. But never again.
....
Of course, NBC News has already inadvertently provided explosive
on-the-ground evidence for a controlled-demolition explanation, but,
apparently, this evidence is difficult to reconcile with today's
Operating Theory, which will soon be cast in stone as the immutable
Official Truth.

Quoted message said:

I suppose a police chief would know if an explosion was a bomb or just
a "stuff that burn and explode" as you intelligently put it.

How? You are a complete [censored]! Do you think police chiefs are bomb
experts? Even bomb squads cannot tell by the sounds of an explosion
what it was that exploded.